The House just overwhelmingly passed a bill suspending the refugee program that once allowed Syrian and Iraqi refugees into the country. This was done for an intuitively simple reason; the American populace is afraid of terrorist radicals who might hide among refugees. After all, the Boston bombers were the children of two refugees who fled genocide at the hands of the Serbs.

That's the point of terrorism. That's why so many radicals turn to it in order to further their political and ideological goals. The ultimate goal of the terrorist is, by definition, to gain scraps of power as they fly off of the power centrifuge (to borrow a concept from Mosais Naim) that is fueled by fear. This is a carefully planned tactic that is explicitly taught by jihadi doctrine. "Strike fear into the hearts of the infidels that they may turn upon themselves" is an oft repeated mantra of sorts that run in their circles, one that I've heard myself far too many times for comfort. They flourish on the fear of their victims.

In this light I express my admiration for the Frenchman who addressed his wife's killers after the tragedy at the Bataclan when he declared that he would not give them the gift of his hate or his fear, that he would not trade his freedom for a facade of safety. Ideals that are so traditionally American that one is saddened by the lack of american patriots who would stand tall, dignified in the face of adversity and face down those who would have them cower.

The republicans are right, in a way. Our freedom IS under attack. The ideals and values that we hold dear are being assaulted by those who want us to abandon them and trade them for some semblance of safety. They want us to turn people away at our doorstep, they want us to look upon our fellows with fear and suspicion, they want us distrust one another, because they know that divided we fall. A sad day it is when terrorists can frighten into submission the denizens of the Land of the Free, Home of the brave.

At 11/19/2015 8:06:41 PM, withywindle wrote:The House just overwhelmingly passed a bill suspending the refugee program that once allowed Syrian and Iraqi refugees into the country. This was done for an intuitively simple reason; the American populace is afraid of terrorist radicals who might hide among refugees. After all, the Boston bombers were the children of two refugees who fled genocide at the hands of the Serbs.

That's the point of terrorism. That's why so many radicals turn to it in order to further their political and ideological goals. The ultimate goal of the terrorist is, by definition, to gain scraps of power as they fly off of the power centrifuge (to borrow a concept from Mosais Naim) that is fueled by fear. This is a carefully planned tactic that is explicitly taught by jihadi doctrine. "Strike fear into the hearts of the infidels that they may turn upon themselves" is an oft repeated mantra of sorts that run in their circles, one that I've heard myself far too many times for comfort. They flourish on the fear of their victims.

In this light I express my admiration for the Frenchman who addressed his wife's killers after the tragedy at the Bataclan when he declared that he would not give them the gift of his hate or his fear, that he would not trade his freedom for a facade of safety. Ideals that are so traditionally American that one is saddened by the lack of american patriots who would stand tall, dignified in the face of adversity and face down those who would have them cower.

The republicans are right, in a way. Our freedom IS under attack. The ideals and values that we hold dear are being assaulted by those who want us to abandon them and trade them for some semblance of safety. They want us to turn people away at our doorstep, they want us to look upon our fellows with fear and suspicion, they want us distrust one another, because they know that divided we fall. A sad day it is when terrorists can frighten into submission the denizens of the Land of the Free, Home of the brave.

At 11/19/2015 8:25:13 PM, Emilrose wrote:Again, it would seem that you're over-simplifying the whole issue and focusing almost exclusively on the emotional aspects involved.

In fact, the appeal to people's feelings as regards the refugee/migrant crisis is nothing less than cheap and impractical.

Yes, I AM appealing to the emotions of the readers, but my argument is constructed in fact and logic. You have yet to show why we should turn away legal refugees beside a vague assertion that some of them might be bad.

America spends 600 billion $ annually on military expenditure to defend against such countries as Russia, China and drug cartels. It has exhausted its budget for Iraq/Middle East and Congress has not allocated new spending. So the war with ISIS and Syria remains unfunded.

I strongly disagree that this is a victory for the terrorists. Rather, it just became slightly more difficult for them to commit terror attacks against the United States (well, if it weren't for those other states it would be).

At 11/19/2015 10:07:24 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:I strongly disagree that this is a victory for the terrorists. Rather, it just became slightly more difficult for them to commit terror attacks against the United States (well, if it weren't for those other states it would be).

This is basically the Bush doctrine. Fight the terrorist in their country because it will be impossible to fight them once they are in the homeland.Unfortunately it is turning out to be just as hard to fight the terrorist who are everywhere.

At 11/19/2015 8:06:41 PM, withywindle wrote:That's the point of terrorism. That's why so many radicals turn to it in order to further their political and ideological goals. The ultimate goal of the terrorist is, by definition, to gain scraps of power as they fly off of the power centrifuge (to borrow a concept from Mosais Naim) that is fueled by fear. This is a carefully planned tactic that is explicitly taught by jihadi doctrine. "Strike fear into the hearts of the infidels that they may turn upon themselves" is an oft repeated mantra of sorts that run in their circles, one that I've heard myself far too many times for comfort. They flourish on the fear of their victims.

You mistake what is an act of war with an act if terror. Fear is a component of their tactics, but they also seek to win the sympathies and support of other Muslims. Watch their propaganda videos. Their goal is to establish a worldwide caliphate. Radical Islamists have no intention to contain their ideology to just Syria and Iraq. They view the Islamification of the West as a victory.

Does anyone actually think that not accepting refugees means the terrorists win? Lol. That's so far removed from reality I don't even know where to begin. At best refusing refugees is irrelevant to the ends of terrorists, more likely its just collateral damage to them

DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

At 11/19/2015 8:06:41 PM, withywindle wrote:That's the point of terrorism. That's why so many radicals turn to it in order to further their political and ideological goals. The ultimate goal of the terrorist is, by definition, to gain scraps of power as they fly off of the power centrifuge (to borrow a concept from Mosais Naim) that is fueled by fear. This is a carefully planned tactic that is explicitly taught by jihadi doctrine. "Strike fear into the hearts of the infidels that they may turn upon themselves" is an oft repeated mantra of sorts that run in their circles, one that I've heard myself far too many times for comfort. They flourish on the fear of their victims.

You mistake what is an act of war with an act if terror. Fear is a component of their tactics, but they also seek to win the sympathies and support of other Muslims. Watch their propaganda videos. Their goal is to establish a worldwide caliphate. Radical Islamists have no intention to contain their ideology to just Syria and Iraq. They view the Islamification of the West as a victory.

Exactly... Less Muslims in the west is completely contrary to the goal. However they predicted, correctly, that there is literally nothing they can do to the west that would get them to refuse refugees

DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

And no, I'm not saying no refugees. A policy of accepting a limited number of thoroughly vetted, actual refugees who agree to leave once the conflict in Syria is over is a sane and humanitarian policy. I don't know what US policy is actually like, but if it's close to this the governors aren't being entirely rational.

Accepting anyone who shows up because some feelings might get hurt if we don't like Germany is doing is neither sane nor humane

DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

At 11/19/2015 8:06:41 PM, withywindle wrote:That's the point of terrorism. That's why so many radicals turn to it in order to further their political and ideological goals. The ultimate goal of the terrorist is, by definition, to gain scraps of power as they fly off of the power centrifuge (to borrow a concept from Mosais Naim) that is fueled by fear. This is a carefully planned tactic that is explicitly taught by jihadi doctrine. "Strike fear into the hearts of the infidels that they may turn upon themselves" is an oft repeated mantra of sorts that run in their circles, one that I've heard myself far too many times for comfort. They flourish on the fear of their victims.

You mistake what is an act of war with an act if terror.

I do not. This was not an act of war, it was one of terror. They did not target an institution, government, military, or infrastructure, they targeted innocent civilians in an effort to incite fear and cause the western governments to turn on the Muslims living here. We turn on the muslim populace, that gives them more people ripe for radicalization.

Fear is a component of their tactics, but they also seek to win the sympathies and support of other Muslims.

Not necessarily. ISIS are the most recent incarnation of Takfeeriyyah, a radical doctrine that excludes Muslims who do not support their cause and call for their death alongside the "infidels". It's a distinct ideology that's raised its head periodically throughout history.

Watch their propaganda videos. Their goal is to establish a worldwide caliphate. Radical Islamists have no intention to contain their ideology to just Syria and Iraq. They view the Islamification of the West as a victory.

Of course they do, but the west is not their main target. not yet, and it wont be their main target until they control Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem. Those are their primary objectives and that's where they are going to focus the brunt of their force.

At 11/19/2015 8:25:13 PM, Emilrose wrote:Again, it would seem that you're over-simplifying the whole issue and focusing almost exclusively on the emotional aspects involved.

In fact, the appeal to people's feelings as regards the refugee/migrant crisis is nothing less than cheap and impractical.

The basis for values is the most important of all.

You can try and rationalize the world through logic, and in the process completely sell away your humanity, or you can just always conduct yourself based on the principles you would want your own children to one day adopt.

At 11/19/2015 8:25:13 PM, Emilrose wrote:Again, it would seem that you're over-simplifying the whole issue and focusing almost exclusively on the emotional aspects involved.

In fact, the appeal to people's feelings as regards the refugee/migrant crisis is nothing less than cheap and impractical.

Yes, I AM appealing to the emotions of the readers, but my argument is constructed in fact and logic.

Which thus show that your argument is not 'constructed' on 'fact' or 'logic'. You continue make blatant contradictions.

An appeal to emotion in response to an action based primarily on emotion is neither illogical nor intellectually dubious. Emotional appeals and login in an argument are not mutually exclusive, an argument only fails if it is constructed solely on emotion, which mine is not. My fundamental argument is that in turning away refugees, we are making a strategic error that ISIS hoped we would. To be very clear, ISIS cannot infiltrate the USA via its refugee program. If you disagree, then please read up on the program.

You have yet to show why we should turn away legal refugees beside a vague assertion that some of them might be bad.

It's YOU that should show *why* refugees AND migrants (because many of these are included with the refugees)

No, do not throw migrants into this issue, they are distinct and separate issues with distinct factors risks, and policies. You are wrong to equate the two.

And the people who take that route are then, by definition, no longer refugees but criminals. You link me a piece on an organized crime problem and claim that this is somehow supportive of refusing refugees asylum, yet the very nature of the problem is different. By using these false documents they are not coming via the channels of the refugees and thus closing said channels will not serve to close this illegal avenue of access. They are independent of one another, with the illegal avenue being used only by those for whom the legal one is either closed or too long.

Again, you link me to something that is irrelevant. I am clearly referring to refugees fleeing the Syrian and Iraqi conflicts. and the policy I referenced is referring ONLY to them. The fact that there are also other refugees from other places coming into a nation that is unaffected by said policy is irrelevant, and I fail to understand why you see the need to bring it up here.

So Germany has a lax migration policy. How is that relevant? I am talking about the American congress making a strategically stupid decision with about and american policy. Frankly, my ONLY opinion on the European issue is that turning away legal refugees is stupid and will serve only to empower ISIS.

Yes, thett, I do. We react out of fear, allowing them to control our actions by inciting more fear.

Lol. That's so far removed from reality I don't even know where to begin.

Perhaps you could begin by explain why my logic is incorrect rather than just insult it and move on.

At best refusing refugees is irrelevant to the ends of terrorists, more likely its just collateral damage to them

Not true. The refugees are a prime source of human capital for a LOT of people, ISIS included. If they feel victimized by us, that opens the door to radicalization. Poverty, lack of education, lack of basic human needs, these are all factors that determine risk of radical tendencies, and these are all things that are guaranteed for the refugees unless someone takes them in. we refuse, we increase their mathematically demonstrable risk of becoming radical.

At 11/20/2015 12:00:51 AM, thett3 wrote:And no, I'm not saying no refugees. A policy of accepting a limited number of thoroughly vetted, actual refugees who agree to leave once the conflict in Syria is over is a sane and humanitarian policy. I don't know what US policy is actually like, but if it's close to this the governors aren't being entirely rational.

Accepting anyone who shows up because some feelings might get hurt if we don't like Germany is doing is neither sane nor humane

And thats not what anyone here is saying. Red herring. You know better than that.

At 11/19/2015 8:06:41 PM, withywindle wrote:That's the point of terrorism. That's why so many radicals turn to it in order to further their political and ideological goals. The ultimate goal of the terrorist is, by definition, to gain scraps of power as they fly off of the power centrifuge (to borrow a concept from Mosais Naim) that is fueled by fear. This is a carefully planned tactic that is explicitly taught by jihadi doctrine. "Strike fear into the hearts of the infidels that they may turn upon themselves" is an oft repeated mantra of sorts that run in their circles, one that I've heard myself far too many times for comfort. They flourish on the fear of their victims.

You mistake what is an act of war with an act if terror. Fear is a component of their tactics, but they also seek to win the sympathies and support of other Muslims. Watch their propaganda videos. Their goal is to establish a worldwide caliphate. Radical Islamists have no intention to contain their ideology to just Syria and Iraq. They view the Islamification of the West as a victory.

Exactly... Less Muslims in the west is completely contrary to the goal.

No, you are wrong about this one. Their goal is convince muslims to perform Hijrah (religious migration, abandoning the lands of the "infidels" and moving to the lands of the "believers") and those who do not are labelled as apostates. Yes, it is counter-intuitive from a strategic perspective, but it what they are calling for nonetheless.

However they predicted, correctly, that there is literally nothing they can do to the west that would get them to refuse refugees

Well they just did, seeing as the house just voted to suspend the refugee program for that area.

Yes, thett, I do. We react out of fear, allowing them to control our actions by inciting more fear.

Your committing a fallacy here--not every action that's motivated by fear means the terrorists win just because those words sound similar. That's incredibly sh!t tier analysis. The goal ISIS has with regards to the West, to the extent that it has any goal at all, is one of destruction and Islamization. Less Muslims is 100% contrary to that goal.

Lol. That's so far removed from reality I don't even know where to begin.

Perhaps you could begin by explain why my logic is incorrect rather than just insult it and move on.

At best refusing refugees is irrelevant to the ends of terrorists, more likely its just collateral damage to them

Not true. The refugees are a prime source of human capital for a LOT of people, ISIS included. If they feel victimized by us, that opens the door to radicalization. Poverty, lack of education, lack of basic human needs, these are all factors that determine risk of radical tendencies, and these are all things that are guaranteed for the refugees unless someone takes them in. we refuse, we increase their mathematically demonstrable risk of becoming radical.

If we refuse to let them in, they won't be here to commit terrorism in the first place so who cares if they're radicalized? Want to talk about mathematically demonstrable risks? Let them in: Risk of them turning on us. Refuse them: No risk.

This is addressing the symptom rather than the disease, and addressing it in a very ineffective way. The solution to the migrant crisis is to back Assad and destroy ISIS and what remains of the rebels.

DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

At 11/19/2015 10:07:24 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:I strongly disagree that this is a victory for the terrorists. Rather, it just became slightly more difficult for them to commit terror attacks against the United States (well, if it weren't for those other states it would be).

Ah yes condemn thousands to die so the US can be a slightly safer. Forget that the Paris attackers were born on European soil. Forget that we are a nation of immigrants. Forget that white supremacists have committed more acts of terrorism on their fellow americans on US soil than Muslims. Forget Ben franklins words of wisdom about trading liberty for security. Forget tge woeds written on the statue of liberty. Forget that Jesus said to protect the weak.

We forget who we are in this wave of fear and you think this isn't a win for terrorists?

"The annoying kid has a point. Let's revolt in this bitch!" - The Boondocks

At 11/19/2015 8:06:41 PM, withywindle wrote:That's the point of terrorism. That's why so many radicals turn to it in order to further their political and ideological goals. The ultimate goal of the terrorist is, by definition, to gain scraps of power as they fly off of the power centrifuge (to borrow a concept from Mosais Naim) that is fueled by fear. This is a carefully planned tactic that is explicitly taught by jihadi doctrine. "Strike fear into the hearts of the infidels that they may turn upon themselves" is an oft repeated mantra of sorts that run in their circles, one that I've heard myself far too many times for comfort. They flourish on the fear of their victims.

You mistake what is an act of war with an act if terror. Fear is a component of their tactics, but they also seek to win the sympathies and support of other Muslims. Watch their propaganda videos. Their goal is to establish a worldwide caliphate. Radical Islamists have no intention to contain their ideology to just Syria and Iraq. They view the Islamification of the West as a victory.

Exactly... Less Muslims in the west is completely contrary to the goal.

No, you are wrong about this one. Their goal is convince muslims to perform Hijrah (religious migration, abandoning the lands of the "infidels" and moving to the lands of the "believers") and those who do not are labelled as apostates. Yes, it is counter-intuitive from a strategic perspective, but it what they are calling for nonetheless.

However they predicted, correctly, that there is literally nothing they can do to the west that would get them to refuse refugees

Well they just did, seeing as the house just voted to suspend the refugee program for that area.

Obama will veto the bill. The House has repealed Obamacare like 10,000 times. They're totally irrelevant. Again, there's absolutely nothing that will pull the West out of this. 10 9/11's could happen tomorrow and it wouldn't wake these people up.

DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

Yes, thett, I do. We react out of fear, allowing them to control our actions by inciting more fear.

Your committing a fallacy here--not every action that's motivated by fear means the terrorists win just because those words sound similar. That's incredibly sh!t tier analysis. The goal ISIS has with regards to the West, to the extent that it has any goal at all, is one of destruction and Islamization. Less Muslims is 100% contrary to that goal.

Wrong, that is NOT their ultimate goal, that is a biased perception because you've only ever been exposed to them in light of their relationship to the west. You want to understand their real goal? You have to understand their ideology, what it is, where it came from, why it popped up (again). Frankly, you dont understand any of those things and you know that you do not. Less Muslims in the west is EXACTLY what they are calling for right now.

Second: You'd be incorrect in your critique of my logic were I actually equating "getting scared" with "people who want us scared win". I am not, however, doing that. ISIS has a set number of objectives, one of which is to increase our animosity and fear of innocent Muslims as a ploy to bolster support for them, and our policymakers just played right into their hand. THAT is the victory I'm talking about.

Lol. That's so far removed from reality I don't even know where to begin.

Perhaps you could begin by explain why my logic is incorrect rather than just insult it and move on.

At best refusing refugees is irrelevant to the ends of terrorists, more likely its just collateral damage to them

Not true. The refugees are a prime source of human capital for a LOT of people, ISIS included. If they feel victimized by us, that opens the door to radicalization. Poverty, lack of education, lack of basic human needs, these are all factors that determine risk of radical tendencies, and these are all things that are guaranteed for the refugees unless someone takes them in. we refuse, we increase their mathematically demonstrable risk of becoming radical.

If we refuse to let them in, they won't be here to commit terrorism in the first place so who cares if they're radicalized? Want to talk about mathematically demonstrable risks? Let them in: Risk of them turning on us. Refuse them: No risk.

This shows a shockingly narrow worldview. We in the history of terror in america, the threat has ALWAYS been from people who are either citizens of the USA or who are here via student or business visa. people are radicalized, they pose a threat, be they here or elsewhere. You logic is "hey, they wanna blow people up? good luck to them, so long as it aint me." What about the rest of th world? What about the fact that increased global radicalism means increased threat overall? I am saying that we need to combat the spread of radicalism, you are saying that we dont have to, all we have to is make sure they hurt other people and not us.

This is addressing the symptom rather than the disease, and addressing it in a very ineffective way. The solution to the migrant crisis is to back Assad and destroy ISIS and what remains of the rebels.

Nope, that doesnt solve anything. that exaggerates the problem tenfold. You forget, the conflict is not between Assad and ISIS. It is between dozens of factions, of whom ISIS is a latecomer. Back the oppressive dictator who gassed protesters with biological agents and support him in subjugating his own people? All that will be is us holding open the door to radicals and saying, "here, we primed a bunch of people for ya, have at em".

At 11/19/2015 8:06:41 PM, withywindle wrote:That's the point of terrorism. That's why so many radicals turn to it in order to further their political and ideological goals. The ultimate goal of the terrorist is, by definition, to gain scraps of power as they fly off of the power centrifuge (to borrow a concept from Mosais Naim) that is fueled by fear. This is a carefully planned tactic that is explicitly taught by jihadi doctrine. "Strike fear into the hearts of the infidels that they may turn upon themselves" is an oft repeated mantra of sorts that run in their circles, one that I've heard myself far too many times for comfort. They flourish on the fear of their victims.

You mistake what is an act of war with an act if terror. Fear is a component of their tactics, but they also seek to win the sympathies and support of other Muslims. Watch their propaganda videos. Their goal is to establish a worldwide caliphate. Radical Islamists have no intention to contain their ideology to just Syria and Iraq. They view the Islamification of the West as a victory.

Exactly... Less Muslims in the west is completely contrary to the goal.

And about this point, if they really did want more muslims in the west, why are they actively calling for the muder of any muslims who do not leave and move to them?

No, you are wrong about this one. Their goal is convince muslims to perform Hijrah (religious migration, abandoning the lands of the "infidels" and moving to the lands of the "believers") and those who do not are labelled as apostates. Yes, it is counter-intuitive from a strategic perspective, but it what they are calling for nonetheless.

However they predicted, correctly, that there is literally nothing they can do to the west that would get them to refuse refugees

Well they just did, seeing as the house just voted to suspend the refugee program for that area.

Obama will veto the bill. The House has repealed Obamacare like 10,000 times. They're totally irrelevant. Again, there's absolutely nothing that will pull the West out of this. 10 9/11's could happen tomorrow and it wouldn't wake these people up.

Yes, thett, I do. We react out of fear, allowing them to control our actions by inciting more fear.

Your committing a fallacy here--not every action that's motivated by fear means the terrorists win just because those words sound similar. That's incredibly sh!t tier analysis. The goal ISIS has with regards to the West, to the extent that it has any goal at all, is one of destruction and Islamization. Less Muslims is 100% contrary to that goal.

Wrong, that is NOT their ultimate goal, that is a biased perception because you've only ever been exposed to them in light of their relationship to the west. You want to understand their real goal? You have to understand their ideology, what it is, where it came from, why it popped up (again). Frankly, you dont understand any of those things and you know that you do not. Less Muslims in the west is EXACTLY what they are calling for right now.

Is that why they sent lots of operates to the West in the wake of the migrant crisis? Is that why Muslims have been agitating for Europe since our civilizations first came into contact? Please.

Second: You'd be incorrect in your critique of my logic were I actually equating "getting scared" with "people who want us scared win". I am not, however, doing that. ISIS has a set number of objectives, one of which is to increase our animosity and fear of innocent Muslims as a ploy to bolster support for them and our policymakers just played right into their hand. THAT is the victory I'm talking about.

Don't be naive. They don't even need to do anything--decades of doing everything to make Muslims feel welcome in Britain has only made them more radicalized. The Europeans and to a large extent America acted exactly as ISIS knew they would...by caring more about Muslims getting dirty looks than about the 150 bodies on the floor. Hell, I would put serious cash on Europe welcoming even more refugees in response to this to signal how not racist they are.

At this point, the only question is how many people have to die until we wake up?

Lol. That's so far removed from reality I don't even know where to begin.

Perhaps you could begin by explain why my logic is incorrect rather than just insult it and move on.

At best refusing refugees is irrelevant to the ends of terrorists, more likely its just collateral damage to them

Not true. The refugees are a prime source of human capital for a LOT of people, ISIS included. If they feel victimized by us, that opens the door to radicalization. Poverty, lack of education, lack of basic human needs, these are all factors that determine risk of radical tendencies, and these are all things that are guaranteed for the refugees unless someone takes them in. we refuse, we increase their mathematically demonstrable risk of becoming radical.

If we refuse to let them in, they won't be here to commit terrorism in the first place so who cares if they're radicalized? Want to talk about mathematically demonstrable risks? Let them in: Risk of them turning on us. Refuse them: No risk.

This shows a shockingly narrow worldview. We in the history of terror in america, the threat has ALWAYS been from people who are either citizens of the USA or who are here via student or business visa. people are radicalized, they pose a threat, be they here or elsewhere.

That people already here can commit terrorism is no reason to dismiss the threat of outsiders committing terrorist acts.

You logic is "hey, they wanna blow people up? good luck to them, so long as it aint me." What about the rest of th world?

US policy should benefit the US, not the rest of the world.

What about the fact that increased global radicalism means increased threat overall? I am saying that we need to combat the spread of radicalism, you are saying that we dont have to, all we have to is make sure they hurt other people and not us.

This is addressing the symptom rather than the disease, and addressing it in a very ineffective way. The solution to the migrant crisis is to back Assad and destroy ISIS and what remains of the rebels.

Nope, that doesnt solve anything. that exaggerates the problem tenfold. You forget, the conflict is not between Assad and ISIS. It is between dozens of factions, of whom ISIS is a latecomer.

Exactly...which is why it makes sense to back Assad, the non-ISIS side that has the best chance of victory instead of some random rebel group we know nothing about.

Back the oppressive dictator who gassed protesters with biological agents and support him in subjugating his own people? All that will be is us holding open the door to radicals and saying, "here, we primed a bunch of people for ya, have at em".

LOL. Where has toppling secular strongmen in the middle east EVER led to less power for radical islam? Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, and Assad were the forces keeping radical Islam in check. Suicidal US foreign policy has destroyed these checks.

DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

At 11/19/2015 8:06:41 PM, withywindle wrote:That's the point of terrorism. That's why so many radicals turn to it in order to further their political and ideological goals. The ultimate goal of the terrorist is, by definition, to gain scraps of power as they fly off of the power centrifuge (to borrow a concept from Mosais Naim) that is fueled by fear. This is a carefully planned tactic that is explicitly taught by jihadi doctrine. "Strike fear into the hearts of the infidels that they may turn upon themselves" is an oft repeated mantra of sorts that run in their circles, one that I've heard myself far too many times for comfort. They flourish on the fear of their victims.

You mistake what is an act of war with an act if terror. Fear is a component of their tactics, but they also seek to win the sympathies and support of other Muslims. Watch their propaganda videos. Their goal is to establish a worldwide caliphate. Radical Islamists have no intention to contain their ideology to just Syria and Iraq. They view the Islamification of the West as a victory.

Exactly... Less Muslims in the west is completely contrary to the goal.

And about this point, if they really did want more muslims in the west, why are they actively calling for the muder of any muslims who do not leave and move to them?

That is not at all what your article says....it praises several acts of terrorism committed against the West by muslims in the West. I genuinely have no clue what you're talking about

No, you are wrong about this one. Their goal is convince muslims to perform Hijrah (religious migration, abandoning the lands of the "infidels" and moving to the lands of the "believers") and those who do not are labelled as apostates. Yes, it is counter-intuitive from a strategic perspective, but it what they are calling for nonetheless.

"When the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) made the Hijrah from Makkah to Madinah, he did not just transfer his residence or took shelter in another city, but as soon as he arrived in Madinah he began the transformation of that city in every aspect."

"

However they predicted, correctly, that there is literally nothing they can do to the west that would get them to refuse refugees

Well they just did, seeing as the house just voted to suspend the refugee program for that area.

Obama will veto the bill. The House has repealed Obamacare like 10,000 times. They're totally irrelevant. Again, there's absolutely nothing that will pull the West out of this. 10 9/11's could happen tomorrow and it wouldn't wake these people up.

DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

Yes, thett, I do. We react out of fear, allowing them to control our actions by inciting more fear.

Your committing a fallacy here--not every action that's motivated by fear means the terrorists win just because those words sound similar. That's incredibly sh!t tier analysis. The goal ISIS has with regards to the West, to the extent that it has any goal at all, is one of destruction and Islamization. Less Muslims is 100% contrary to that goal.

Wrong, that is NOT their ultimate goal, that is a biased perception because you've only ever been exposed to them in light of their relationship to the west. You want to understand their real goal? You have to understand their ideology, what it is, where it came from, why it popped up (again). Frankly, you dont understand any of those things and you know that you do not. Less Muslims in the west is EXACTLY what they are calling for right now.

Is that why they sent lots of operates to the West in the wake of the migrant crisis? Is that why Muslims have been agitating for Europe since our civilizations first came into contact? Please.

Fun fact: The operatives being sent to the west are their own citizens returning on mission that involve killing the non-radical muslims here. Stop making assumptions and start looking at what ISIS is actually saying before you come conclusions.

Second: You'd be incorrect in your critique of my logic were I actually equating "getting scared" with "people who want us scared win". I am not, however, doing that. ISIS has a set number of objectives, one of which is to increase our animosity and fear of innocent Muslims as a ploy to bolster support for them and our policymakers just played right into their hand. THAT is the victory I'm talking about.

Don't be naive. They don't even need to do anything--decades of doing everything to make Muslims feel welcome in Britain has only made them more radicalized. The Europeans and to a large extent America acted exactly as ISIS knew they would...by caring more about Muslims getting dirty looks than about the 150 bodies on the floor. Hell, I would put serious cash on Europe welcoming even more refugees in response to this to signal how not racist they are.

let me get this straight... being nice to Muslims has increased radicalization in the west? The radical ideologies are imports, not home home grown ideas. We can trace exactly who started them and how they spread. People are not being radicalized because we are nice to them, they are being radicalized because it is easy for an ideology to spread across borders.

At this point, the only question is how many people have to die until we wake up?

Lol. That's so far removed from reality I don't even know where to begin.

Perhaps you could begin by explain why my logic is incorrect rather than just insult it and move on.

At best refusing refugees is irrelevant to the ends of terrorists, more likely its just collateral damage to them

Not true. The refugees are a prime source of human capital for a LOT of people, ISIS included. If they feel victimized by us, that opens the door to radicalization. Poverty, lack of education, lack of basic human needs, these are all factors that determine risk of radical tendencies, and these are all things that are guaranteed for the refugees unless someone takes them in. we refuse, we increase their mathematically demonstrable risk of becoming radical.

If we refuse to let them in, they won't be here to commit terrorism in the first place so who cares if they're radicalized? Want to talk about mathematically demonstrable risks? Let them in: Risk of them turning on us. Refuse them: No risk.

This shows a shockingly narrow worldview. We in the history of terror in america, the threat has ALWAYS been from people who are either citizens of the USA or who are here via student or business visa. people are radicalized, they pose a threat, be they here or elsewhere.

That people already here can commit terrorism is no reason to dismiss the threat of outsiders committing terrorist acts.

But that is exactly what you are doing, you are dismissing the long term global risk so that you can lower an infinitesimally small, localized current risk. It is one-step thinking.

You logic is "hey, they wanna blow people up? good luck to them, so long as it aint me." What about the rest of th world?

US policy should benefit the US, not the rest of the world.

We live in a global society where the issues of one corner are now felt the world over. Get with the program, its not 1950 anymore.

What about the fact that increased global radicalism means increased threat overall? I am saying that we need to combat the spread of radicalism, you are saying that we dont have to, all we have to is make sure they hurt other people and not us.

This is addressing the symptom rather than the disease, and addressing it in a very ineffective way. The solution to the migrant crisis is to back Assad and destroy ISIS and what remains of the rebels.

Nope, that doesnt solve anything. that exaggerates the problem tenfold. You forget, the conflict is not between Assad and ISIS. It is between dozens of factions, of whom ISIS is a latecomer.

Exactly...which is why it makes sense to back Assad, the non-ISIS side that has the best chance of victory instead of some random rebel group we know nothing about.

No, it doesnt, because while that might slightly mitigate the short term risk, it exxagerrates the long term risk. I suggest you do some reading on the spread of extremist ideologies and what factors play into them.

Back the oppressive dictator who gassed protesters with biological agents and support him in subjugating his own people? All that will be is us holding open the door to radicals and saying, "here, we primed a bunch of people for ya, have at em".

LOL. Where has toppling secular strongmen in the middle east EVER led to less power for radical islam? Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, and Assad were the forces keeping radical Islam in check. Suicidal US foreign policy has destroyed these checks.

Never has. The one critical difference you have to keep in mind, however, is that we didnt topple this one, his own people did. we washed our hands of the whole thing.

At 11/19/2015 8:06:41 PM, withywindle wrote:That's the point of terrorism. That's why so many radicals turn to it in order to further their political and ideological goals. The ultimate goal of the terrorist is, by definition, to gain scraps of power as they fly off of the power centrifuge (to borrow a concept from Mosais Naim) that is fueled by fear. This is a carefully planned tactic that is explicitly taught by jihadi doctrine. "Strike fear into the hearts of the infidels that they may turn upon themselves" is an oft repeated mantra of sorts that run in their circles, one that I've heard myself far too many times for comfort. They flourish on the fear of their victims.

You mistake what is an act of war with an act if terror. Fear is a component of their tactics, but they also seek to win the sympathies and support of other Muslims. Watch their propaganda videos. Their goal is to establish a worldwide caliphate. Radical Islamists have no intention to contain their ideology to just Syria and Iraq. They view the Islamification of the West as a victory.

Exactly... Less Muslims in the west is completely contrary to the goal.

And about this point, if they really did want more muslims in the west, why are they actively calling for the muder of any muslims who do not leave and move to them?

That is not at all what your article says....it praises several acts of terrorism committed against the West by muslims in the West. I genuinely have no clue what you're talking about

The article is written by ISIS, and here are the relevant passages. They want muslims to be subjected to more persecution so that they are forced to make Hijra to join them in their lands, and then they call for death of any who do not.

"The Muslims in the West will quickly find themselves between one of two choices, they either apostatize and adopt the kufr religion propagated by Bush, Obama, Blair, Cameron, Sarkozy, and Hollande in the name of Islam so as to live amongst the kuffar without hardship, or they perform hijrah to the Islamic State and thereby escape persecution from the crusader governments and citizens."

"Shaykh Sulayml ash-Shaykh (rahimahull;h) said, "The meaning of the ayah is apparent. It means that if a man hears the verses of Allah being denied and mocked and sits with the kafir mockers without being coerced, without forbidding them, and without getting up and leaving until they change the subject, then he is a kafir like them even if he does not do the same as them, because his remaining with them entails approval of kufr. And approval of kufr is kufr" [Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah].If merely sitting silently with the kuffar during a gathering of kufr is kufr, how much more so is it to rally on behalf of a newspaper mocking the Messenger ? Or give verdicts in defense of the newspaper, against the mujahideen who killed those who mocked the Messenger? Or raise banners and slogans with the words "Je Suis Charlie" on them? There is no doubt that such deeds are apostasy, that those who publicly call to such deeds in the name of Islam and scholarship are from the du"at (callers) to apostasy, and that there is great reward awaiting the Muslim in the Hereafter if he kills these apostate imams""

No, you are wrong about this one. Their goal is convince muslims to perform Hijrah (religious migration, abandoning the lands of the "infidels" and moving to the lands of the "believers") and those who do not are labelled as apostates. Yes, it is counter-intuitive from a strategic perspective, but it what they are calling for nonetheless.

"When the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) made the Hijrah from Makkah to Madinah, he did not just transfer his residence or took shelter in another city, but as soon as he arrived in Madinah he began the transformation of that city in every aspect."

"

However they predicted, correctly, that there is literally nothing they can do to the west that would get them to refuse refugees

Well they just did, seeing as the house just voted to suspend the refugee program for that area.

Obama will veto the bill. The House has repealed Obamacare like 10,000 times. They're totally irrelevant. Again, there's absolutely nothing that will pull the West out of this. 10 9/11's could happen tomorrow and it wouldn't wake these people up.

Don't be naive. They don't even need to do anything--decades of doing everything to make Muslims feel welcome in Britain has only made them more radicalized. The Europeans and to a large extent America acted exactly as ISIS knew they would...by caring more about Muslims getting dirty looks than about the 150 bodies on the floor. Hell, I would put serious cash on Europe welcoming even more refugees in response to this to signal how not racist they are.

let me get this straight... being nice to Muslims has increased radicalization in the west?

Yep. Not forcing groups to assimilate has made things far worse.

The radical ideologies are imports, not home home grown ideas. We can trace exactly who started them and how they spread. People are not being radicalized because we are nice to them, they are being radicalized because it is easy for an ideology to spread across borders.

So we should let more muslims into Europe even though you admit it's incredibly easy for radical ideology to spread? Sounds like a sane policy to me.

At this point, the only question is how many people have to die until we wake up?

That people already here can commit terrorism is no reason to dismiss the threat of outsiders committing terrorist acts.

But that is exactly what you are doing, you are dismissing the long term global risk so that you can lower an infinitesimally small, localized current risk. It is one-step thinking.

No it's not. There is far more risk from letting in millions of Muslims to Europe than there is to having these people stay in Turkey

You logic is "hey, they wanna blow people up? good luck to them, so long as it aint me." What about the rest of th world?

US policy should benefit the US, not the rest of the world.

We live in a global society where the issues of one corner are now felt the world over. Get with the program, its not 1950 anymore.

"It's the current year" nice argument

Exactly...which is why it makes sense to back Assad, the non-ISIS side that has the best chance of victory instead of some random rebel group we know nothing about.

No, it doesnt, because while that might slightly mitigate the short term risk, it exxagerrates the long term risk. I suggest you do some reading on the spread of extremist ideologies and what factors play into them.

Whatever. Between ISIS and Assad, Assad is clearly better.

LOL. Where has toppling secular strongmen in the middle east EVER led to less power for radical islam? Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, and Assad were the forces keeping radical Islam in check. Suicidal US foreign policy has destroyed these checks.

Never has. The one critical difference you have to keep in mind, however, is that we didnt topple this one, his own people did. we washed our hands of the whole thing.